Speech of the PM M. Topolánek on the occasion of Ceremony to Commemorate the 60th Anniversary of the death of the Czechoslovak President E. Beneš

Dear guests of the commemorating ceremony, 
The President Edvard Beneš was a great statesman. I would like to say it so clearly and briefly right in the introduction. This fact cannot be influenced by any present or future polemics. For that matter, this attention is an evidence of his greatness. The life of Beneš and his public activities are a source of inspiration for us even sixty years after his death. Edvard Beneš was an example of diligent, educated and contemplative politician, a politician who had an opportunity - or was unlucky - to live in hectic and complicated time, in time which imposed great requirements on characters of people and placed them into necessity to solve serious problems and fatal dilemmas.

Beneš's dramatic life leads us to contemplation on the role of a politician and a statesman; on his priorities, on the positive and negative limits of his responsibility and on possibility to influence the history. When we study the Beneš's activities with the benefit of hindsight, we must ask: which of us would stand the test? Would anybody stand it at all?

It is beyond all possible doubt that Edvard Beneš was very well prepared for his public role, and he showed that as early as in the course of the Paris Peace Conference. As the Minister of Foreign Affairs he managed to win recognition and a strong international position for Czechoslovakia. He established and later presided over the League of Nations. Up to now, he has been the only one Czech politician who led the world community.

After sixty years we critically evaluate certain Beneš's steps taken in the end of his political carrier. Such openness is sound and necessary. Even the greatest leaders should not be untouchable idols. But let us also be fair. The present day makes nowhere near such requirements on politician as it was in the Beneš's time. It is much more tolerant of them, not because of their persons but because of objective consequences of their activities. Do we blame Beneš for his weakness, too helpfulness to communists, making advances to Moscow? But he tried to face all those pressures with all his energy and according to his possibilities. Both in the time of Munich and during the February 1948 and during negotiations on the future power arrangement after the Yalta Conference he was always trying to achieve one thing: to ensure security for Czechoslovakia and its citizens. He failed and it is an objective fact. However, let us be circumspect in declaring judgements on Beneš's personal role or even on his blame.

There are situations when all the powers of a statesman are not enough to avoid a catastrophe. To judge the extent of blame is very sensitive matter. I really do not want to judge it at all. I regard as important a different matter. Edvard Beneš had been trying to anchor Czechoslovakia in the international order throughout his entire political career, and to ensure security and future for it. Beneš had been just searching allies. When I asked about the role of a politician in the history, my question was aimed just at the importance of alliance. The performance of Eduard Beneš shows that neither good will nor professionalism is enough for a successful politician. The work of a politician is short-lived without allies and a support of the world's order. It is applicable for even larger countries than it is that of ours.

Just in the case of Beneš we can see what the significance of reliable allies is – both on the international and domestic scene. If the flourishing First Republic, the Nazi occupation and the communist coup experienced three different statesmen, we could infer that successes and catastrophes are only their personal merits or failures. But that was always the same Edvard Beneš who faced those crucial decisions. Thanks to our alliance with France, England and in particular with the United States, Beneš could negotiate such a unique position for Czechoslovakia. In Munich, on the contrary, he found himself quite alone face to face great powers.

During and after the war he tried to negotiate a balanced position for Czechoslovakia. Through the treaty with Russia he wanted to ensure security guarantees and to avoid interference into our internal matters. The treaty with Moscow was to compensate our alliance with France and the Marshall's plan. Beneš was not successful in this respect.

They were domestic democrats who prepared insoluble dilemma to weakening Beneš during the February 1948. That was their lack of concord and their inability to face the communist minority in the cabinet why he was, to a certain degree, presented with a fait accompli. Nevertheless, the decision was not made on 25th February, when Gotwald "returned from the castle", but some time before through the signature of the Košice Government Programme, the ban of right-wing political parties and the establishment of the National Front. The continuation resulted in gradual taking-over of power by communists and everything culminated at the Old Town Square when the People's Militia demonstrated its preparedness and willingness to take a violent armed action.

Beneš lost his fight in the end. Certainly, it was also thanks to his faults. The history prepared an unpleasant paradox for him – the greatest successes he achieved in the beginning of his carrier while in the end he had been plagued by misfortune.

Let us learn from his life story. What would Beneš give for a chance to have an opportunity to rely on firm alliance? Both the multilateral League of Nations and bilateral treaties, which he relied on, disappointed him. We, his followers must value that lucky circumstance that we have functioning transatlantic alliance. That is why we are members of the European Union; that is why we are members of NATO. These institutions ensure security peace and prosperity.

The present day, unlike that of Beneš, will forgive politicians their real weakness face to face international threats. It will forgive them their tolerance towards communists. It will forgive them servility to Moscow. The present day will forgive them, the future will not.

Yes, possibilities and also responsibility of a politician have their limits. We cannot blame Beneš for catastrophes which he could not pre-empt. Conditions were not favourable. But we must realize that all of us are involved in creation of those conditions; the entire society, every individual. Beneš lost his fight – not primarily because of his weakness but in particular because many people before him showed their weakness face to face to evil.

Beneš had remained a fine man until the end of his life. He refused to sign the communist constitution and resigned. He can be remembered nowadays as a great statesman who had always cared about welfare of citizens. Let us behave in compliance with his legacy and his experience. If Beneš lived today, then I am sure that he, who was blamed so many times for his hesitation in solving problems, would not hesitate today al all. Let us pay honour to him!